If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   98 years ago today, some lady debuted on the mound for the Boston Red Sox. Some lady named Ruth   (findingdulcinea.com) divider line 70
    More: Cool, Red Sox, Babe Ruth, St. Mary's, batter's box, Jazz Age, pitchers, American League, pitching ace  
•       •       •

1078 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Jul 2012 at 1:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 05:35:58 PM

dletter:
Yeah, but, for everyone who just brings up "he was just a fat HR hitter", also forgets these career stats for Ruth:


Anyone that says he was just a fat HR hitter is a moron, anyway. Before Ruth set the HR record for a year with 29, the record was 12. A "home run guy" in that era simply didn't exist. If you could hit 10 of them a year, you were a genuine power guy. Ruth's NL counterpart that year hit 12. The next year when Ruth hit 50 of them, his NL counterpart hit 15.

Ruth wasn't just a fat HR guy. He was the first fat HR guy, and stayed that way for a long, long time.
 
2012-07-12 05:38:22 PM

birdboy2000: Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in his last year in Fenway. 54 the year he moved to New York.

If that's not an enormous park effect I don't know what is.


You don't know what is.

The next best Yankee behind Ruth should have had a similar park effect, right?

He hit 11 HRs that year.
 
2012-07-12 05:42:18 PM

Broktun: machoprogrammer: What helped Ruth, too, was that he was an exceptional talent at a time when the majority of players had offseason jobs. Ruth did not. He got to train and recover. Others didn't. He also didn't have to face minority pitchers. That said, he is among the greatest of all time, but to compare him to players of any other era is not really a comparison that can be made. It'd be like comparing Jim Brown to Barry Sanders. Or Random_Old_School_Defensive_Lineman to Reggie White. The game changes, and you cannot really compare them.

Granted, there was a much smaller pool to get players from, but there were only 16 teams of 26 players. There were 416 players in 1920 vs 1200 today

Of course there were no Latino players, as well as blacks. The US population was 1/3 of today's, so the argument is still in your favor, just not as much as people think.

Don't get me started on the difference in travel.


You couldn't be more wrong about the "just not as much as people think" line. While the dominance he had over contemporaries was amazing, his skill just doesn't measure up when you look at the numbers.

The population was a third what it is now; 10% of those people were minorities who couldn't play, and he didn't have to play against minorities. He also faced a limited number of rubber-armed pitchers for him to maul, with only 7 opponents and little bullpen usage. There were no international players, and even though travel sucked, the physical toll of the game and sorry state of medicine would be much worse on his pitching counterparts. Despite all this in his favor, he led the league in K's five times.

And none of that factors in the sociological effect of million-dollar salaries on the player pool. Kids these days have millions of reasons from birth to work to be a pro athlete. No one in Babe's day had much of a reason to want to play baseball. That marketplace would've been woefully inefficient at finding and maximizing talent.
 
2012-07-12 05:55:42 PM

birdboy2000: Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in his last year in Fenway. 54 the year he moved to New York.

If that's not an enormous park effect I don't know what is.

/Though it goes both ways - sure, the Polo Grounds was easy to homer in, but Fenway was a pitchers' park at the time. If the Sox had held onto Ruth he would've only been a little over half the power hitter he became.
//Still one of the best pitchers in Red Sox history.


Also 1920 was the beginning of the "live ball" era, unless I'm mistaken. That 54 isn't remotely comparable to the 29.

Still, best ballplayer ever.
 
2012-07-12 05:58:55 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: birdboy2000: Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in his last year in Fenway. 54 the year he moved to New York.

If that's not an enormous park effect I don't know what is.

/Though it goes both ways - sure, the Polo Grounds was easy to homer in, but Fenway was a pitchers' park at the time. If the Sox had held onto Ruth he would've only been a little over half the power hitter he became.
//Still one of the best pitchers in Red Sox history.

Also 1920 was the beginning of the "live ball" era, unless I'm mistaken. That 54 isn't remotely comparable to the 29.

Still, best ballplayer ever.


That 59 is even more ridiculously impressive than the 59. The live ball era only began at that time because Ruth was hitting them. No one in the league even came close to what he was doing until Rogers Hornsby came along two years later.
 
2012-07-12 06:57:33 PM
I chuckled at the headline because I watching The Sandlot on DVD for the first time since I was a wee lad. Then, I went into the thread and started laughing.
 
2012-07-12 08:24:10 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-12 09:06:24 PM

Dawg47: Broktun: machoprogrammer: What helped Ruth, too, was that he was an exceptional talent at a time when the majority of players had offseason jobs. Ruth did not. He got to train and recover. Others didn't. He also didn't have to face minority pitchers. That said, he is among the greatest of all time, but to compare him to players of any other era is not really a comparison that can be made. It'd be like comparing Jim Brown to Barry Sanders. Or Random_Old_School_Defensive_Lineman to Reggie White. The game changes, and you cannot really compare them.

Granted, there was a much smaller pool to get players from, but there were only 16 teams of 26 players. There were 416 players in 1920 vs 1200 today

Of course there were no Latino players, as well as blacks. The US population was 1/3 of today's, so the argument is still in your favor, just not as much as people think.

Don't get me started on the difference in travel.

You couldn't be more wrong about the "just not as much as people think" line. While the dominance he had over contemporaries was amazing, his skill just doesn't measure up when you look at the numbers.

The population was a third what it is now; 10% of those people were minorities who couldn't play, and he didn't have to play against minorities. He also faced a limited number of rubber-armed pitchers for him to maul, with only 7 opponents and little bullpen usage. There were no international players, and even though travel sucked, the physical toll of the game and sorry state of medicine would be much worse on his pitching counterparts. Despite all this in his favor, he led the league in K's five times.

And none of that factors in the sociological effect of million-dollar salaries on the player pool. Kids these days have millions of reasons from birth to work to be a pro athlete. No one in Babe's day had much of a reason to want to play baseball. That marketplace would've been woefully inefficient at finding and maximizing talent.


On the other hand there were only 3 ways to make a living as an athlete in the first decades of the 20th century. Baseball, boxing, and jockey. Most other sports were strictly amateur endeavors.
 
2012-07-12 09:12:29 PM

birdboy2000: Babe Ruth hit 29 home runs in his last year in Fenway. 54 the year he moved to New York.

If that's not an enormous park effect I don't know what is.

/Though it goes both ways - sure, the Polo Grounds was easy to homer in, but Fenway was a pitchers' park at the time. If the Sox had held onto Ruth he would've only been a little over half the power hitter he became.
//Still one of the best pitchers in Red Sox history.


It wasn't the park. Yankee Stadium didn't open until 1923.

The ball was different, and starting in 1921 with the banning of e spitball the ball was clean, visible, and relatively pristine. There's a reason they call it the live-ball era.
 
2012-07-12 09:49:32 PM

MFAWG: On the other hand there were only 3 ways to make a living as an athlete in the first decades of the 20th century. Baseball, boxing, and jockey. Most other sports were strictly amateur endeavors.


True, but there wasn't near the competition level for professional baseball players back then that there is now. I am guessing not too many kids born in 1895 dreamed of playing pro ball, but I could be wrong...

But anyway, he never had to face minority pitchers, left-handed specialists or pitchers on 4/5-day rest. He was a hell of a talent, no doubt, and one of the greatest, but it's hard to say he is the GOAT when he had an easier set of opposition than other players. IMO, Cobb is the greatest from that era (the low strike out rate and number of hits is just astounding).

And yeah, Ruth wasn't fat at all in his earlier years. Not bodybuilder level physique, but he was in really good shape.
 
2012-07-12 10:11:18 PM
wow - he got called N****r Lips --- interesting censorship....
 
2012-07-12 10:58:29 PM

machoprogrammer: MFAWG: On the other hand there were only 3 ways to make a living as an athlete in the first decades of the 20th century. Baseball, boxing, and jockey. Most other sports were strictly amateur endeavors.

True, but there wasn't near the competition level for professional baseball players back then that there is now. I am guessing not too many kids born in 1895 dreamed of playing pro ball, but I could be wrong...

But anyway, he never had to face minority pitchers, left-handed specialists or pitchers on 4/5-day rest. He was a hell of a talent, no doubt, and one of the greatest, but it's hard to say he is the GOAT when he had an easier set of opposition than other players. IMO, Cobb is the greatest from that era (the low strike out rate and number of hits is just astounding).

And yeah, Ruth wasn't fat at all in his earlier years. Not bodybuilder level physique, but he was in really good shape.


I think the minority thing is a bit overplayed. The talent pool may have been smaller, but the options were far, far fewer. Ruth wasn't going to be a jockey, and I'm not sure he would have been a great heavyweight either.

To paraphrase Bobby Cox: Who the hell knows who the Greatest Of All Time is, but Ruth is the only guy in the running who had success on the mound and at the plate.
 
2012-07-12 11:35:13 PM
Adolf Oliver Nipples

Polo Grounds was 258 feet to left field for a high ball, 279 for a line drive because of the upper deck. 258 feet to right.
Fenway is 310 feet to left and has the monster, 302 to right.

Polo Grounds, to be fair, had a deeper center field. It was not an extreme hitters park, and indeed Ruth's home run totals in 1920 were only slightly higher at the Polo Grounds than on the road. However, Ruth hit under one third of his total home runs at Fenway in 1919 - a grand total of 9 out of 29.

If we hadn't sold him, he would've still been the best power hitter of that era, but his numbers would pale in comparison to what he did with the Yankees, or would have done pretty much anywhere else.
 
2012-07-12 11:35:44 PM
Career statistics:

Batting average .342
Home runs 714
Hits 2,873
Runs batted in 2,217
Win-loss record 94-46
Earned run average 2.28

All-time ranks:

1st on all-time slugging % with 0.690
1st on all-time OPS with 1.164
1st on all-time OPS+ with 206
2nd on all-time on-base % list with .474
2nd on all-time RBI list with 2,217
3rd on all-time home run list with 714
3rd on all-time bases on balls list with 2,062
4th on all-time runs list with 2,174
6th on all-time total bases list with 5,793
10th on all-time batting average list with .342


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-13 01:53:02 AM
Subby writing this headline:
content6.flixster.com

Subby now:
andrewsidea.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-13 05:36:09 AM
Beeroids. What can't they do?
 
2012-07-13 06:52:02 AM
True story. Five years ago, we were renovating the kitchen in our old house. It was a real handyman special located in the Boston suburbs, about 110 years old. As we start ripping out the walls, I find an almost perfectly intact copy of the Boston Globe, dated July 31, 1917. We carefully unfolded and marveled at this wonderful artifact, but the best part was when we got to the sports section. Yes, the Red Sox won that previous day, and the winning pitcher was "Bab" Ruth with his 17th win against the White Sox.

That page I got framed under protective glass and it hangs in my home office. I'm looking at it as I write this.
 
2012-07-13 09:07:35 AM
neef2606.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-13 11:33:11 AM

babysealclubber: You're killing me smalls!


This took ENTIRELY too long.
 
2012-07-14 01:03:33 PM
Oh Wendy Peffercorn....
 
Displayed 20 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report